We can document the damage by the missiles in Israel. Yes a foray is an invasion. There's also an invasion on the southern border of the US, even without a military vehicle present.
We can document the damage by the missiles in Israel.
To an extent. The damage to civilian infrastructure was severe as we can easily see in the numerous videos available. The damage to military installations on the other hand is heavily censored.
Yes a foray is an invasion.
No. It's not. Just as a woman isn't a man. I posted the definitions. Use words correctly and don't make up definitions.
There's also an invasion on the southern border of the US, even without a military vehicle present.
Yes. Because mass immigration is intended to displace the local population and by doing that conquer territory which is a hard requirement for an invasion.
Israel has been invading Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. They've never had the intention of invading Iran themselves because Israel is literally incapable of doing that. Or how exactly do you think Israel is gonna move enough soldiers (which they don't have in the first place) to actually conquer territory in Iran? Jewish teleportation magic? Pretend Iraq and Syria don't exist and Iran is actually a neighbor?
The damage to civilian infrastructure was minimal. How many power stations were destroyed? How many bridges? How many aquifers? How many ports? How many rail stations?
You have significant damage to specific buildings. The damage to areas and neighborhoods is minimal.
Forays require invasions. The issue is not one of scale.
Yes. Because mass immigration is intended to
so you've rejected your own definition. No military units were involved, it couldn't have been an invasion. Just like the Democrats are arguing.
I'm just gonna assume that you do not understand how language works. Maybe I should ask you how you would feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning.
We can document the damage by the missiles in Israel. Yes a foray is an invasion. There's also an invasion on the southern border of the US, even without a military vehicle present.
To an extent. The damage to civilian infrastructure was severe as we can easily see in the numerous videos available. The damage to military installations on the other hand is heavily censored.
No. It's not. Just as a woman isn't a man. I posted the definitions. Use words correctly and don't make up definitions.
Yes. Because mass immigration is intended to displace the local population and by doing that conquer territory which is a hard requirement for an invasion.
Israel has been invading Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. They've never had the intention of invading Iran themselves because Israel is literally incapable of doing that. Or how exactly do you think Israel is gonna move enough soldiers (which they don't have in the first place) to actually conquer territory in Iran? Jewish teleportation magic? Pretend Iraq and Syria don't exist and Iran is actually a neighbor?
The damage to civilian infrastructure was minimal. How many power stations were destroyed? How many bridges? How many aquifers? How many ports? How many rail stations?
You have significant damage to specific buildings. The damage to areas and neighborhoods is minimal.
Forays require invasions. The issue is not one of scale.
so you've rejected your own definition. No military units were involved, it couldn't have been an invasion. Just like the Democrats are arguing.
I'm just gonna assume that you do not understand how language works. Maybe I should ask you how you would feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning.